Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humblein the Chair]

John Bercow: Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets. Please would all Members who have mobile phones or pagers ensure they are switched off or turned to silent mode. There is both a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available in the room.
We are now back to the more familiar territory of clause-by-clause scrutiny. There are no amendments to clause 1, so we go straight to stand part debate.

Clause 1

Exploitation of areas outside the territorial sea for gas importation and storage

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: Good morning. It is good to get into the Committee stage proper, although the evidence sessions are an interesting innovation. It is a great pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mrs. Humble.
Let me introduce clause 1. Under part V of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, coastal states can claim certain rights within an area known as the exclusive economic zone, which extends from the edge of the 12 nautical mile limit to the territorial sea for a further distance of 188 nautical miles. Article 56(1) of the UN convention provides that these rights include, among other things, the exploration and exploitation of the sea bed and its subsoil and the waters above it. It also provides jurisdiction for the establishment and use of installations and structures in the area. The UK has previously claimed a number of rights under article 56(1), such as rights to the offshore generation of electricity, under the Energy Act 2004, but has not yet claimed rights in relation to unloading and storing gas.
The clause makes provision to claim those rights by providing for the ownership to be vested in the Crown within areas designated as gas importation storage zones by means of an Order in Council. Subsection 2 sets out the activities to which those rights relate—namely, the unloading of gas to installations or pipelines, storing gas whether or not it will be recovered and exploring for suitable sites for unloading or storing gas.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that the clause covers both the storage of combustible gases, such as methane and butane, and the storage of non-combustible gases, such as carbon dioxide. Without this provision, it would not be possible to implement the licensing regimes set out in chapters 2 and 3 of this part of the Bill.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister confirm that nothing in the Bill will affect existing foreshore-right owners, where the foreshore is not vested in the Crown?

Malcolm Wicks: If other hon. Members are going to speak to the clause, I may have the opportunity to give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer to that question in due course. I hope that that is acceptable to him. My instinct is that the Bill will not do so; but if my instinct is wrong, perhaps I will return to the question.

Charles Hendry: I join the Minister in welcoming you, Mrs. Humble, as our Chairman, and I thank the Minister for the way that we went through the evidence sessions. It is the first time I have gone through an evidence-taking session. They have been extremely useful; they have given industry and others a very good opportunity to tell us what they think, and that has helped us work more effectively together as a Committee.
My understanding of these Committees was that the Government would normally stuff them with placemen, who would simply vote with everything that the Government wanted, but what is very encouraging is that it is actually a Committee full of Members who understand energy, who care passionately about different aspects of it, and that is very good in terms of the issues that we need to debate.
Another thing that came out of those sessions was a sense that many of the things that we have concerns about are not included in the Bill, such as smart meters, feed-in tariffs and the role of Ofgem. I hope that the Minister will give us an opportunity—particularly in the light of today’s news on British Gas—to have wider debates about fuel poverty and social tariffs, because they are clearly matters of great concern to people.
As you said, Mrs. Humble, there are no amendments to these early clauses, but we wish to have some questions answered before we give the go-ahead to individual clauses. We certainly agree with the Minister that more needs to be done to make those areas outside territorial waters available for gas importation and storage.
Will the Minister tell us his assessment of the long-term role of the Rough gas field storage facility? Does he believe that it has a long life? Does he expect it to be there for many years into the future, or is part of his concern—and part of the reason for introducing these provisions—a feeling that the Rough gas field will have reached the end of its useful life before long? Will the Minister elaborate on how the process of identifying such zones will work? Who will be responsible for that and what process of consultation must be undertaken before approval as an appropriate zone for such work? Can he also provide some detail on the types of installation that such exercises will involve, especially the above-water structure?
There has been recent media coverage and some discussion during the evidence sessions about the Ministry of Defence’s objections to some of the offshore wind farms; not so much the actual objections—we all understand the need for radar and national security—but on the timing of some of those objections. Clearly, if significant parts of the new structures will be above sea level, the MOD might have concerns about them. Perhaps this would be an appropriate moment for the Minister to address those issues. These are simply a few points of clarification; but, in general, we have no objection to the clause.

Brian Iddon: Does the Minister feel that enough is known about the storage of carbon dioxide below the sea in the cavities from which oil has been excavated? Will he support future research by the organisations that are already involved, to ensure that such carbon dioxide storage will be safe indefinitely?

Steve Webb: Good morning, Mrs. Humble. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
What is very striking, having observed the procedures on the Bill so far, is that most of the attention has been focused on what is not in the Bill, rather than what is. Obviously, we will look at the detail. However, the balance of amendments tabled so far reflects the fact that we in the Committee are not particularly exercised with most of the Bill, but we do feel that it is a missed opportunity. I hope that there will be time during our proceedings to discuss those issues, some of which were raised by the hon. Member for Wealden.
Will the Minister give us slightly more context to the clause and this part of the Bill? I appreciate that clause 1 is very limited, but rather than repeat that on each clause in this part of the Bill, may I refer the Minister to the Department’s press notice that relates to those clauses? Is says that
“The current offshore regime for gas infrastructure projects is complex and a barrier to investment.”
Will the Minister expand on the measures in this part of the Bill, of which this is obviously the first clause? What exactly is deemed complex about the present regime by those who have to deal with it? How will the changes in these clauses address those complexities?
Often, we find that complexity is there for a reason. It may be possible to achieve the same objective more simply, but often something has been specified in detail to address a particular problem. How sure is the Minister that, by simplifying the regulation, we will not allow things to happen that were perhaps not meant to be allowed when the original regulations were framed?
If the Minister can give us more of an overview of this part of the Bill—this is probably the right time to do so—it may speed up our consideration of subsequent clauses. Certainly, on the substance of the clause, I do not think that we have any substantive objection.

Malcolm Wicks: I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Northavon about the need to set out the context. I hope that the Committee will be patient with me, as I was going to set that out when I introduced clause 2, which introduces a family of clauses that hang together.
May I just confirm to the hon. Member for East Devon that my instincts were right? The Bill will not affect the territory that he was discussing; indeed, the clause will only affect rights beyond the 12 miles of the territorial sea.
The Conservative spokesman asked me about Rough storage facility. I am advised that that is a commercial matter. However, to be helpful, our understanding is that Rough storage probably has quite a long life ahead of it. The more strategic point however is that there is sense in which the UK continental shelf, especially in the North sea, has been a natural store of gas and, indeed, oil for the UK.
Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con) rose—

Malcolm Wicks: Let me just finish my paragraph—although it could be a long paragraph, I do not know, depending on what the hon. Gentleman is going to ask, and I cannot guess. As the UKCS starts to decline and given the fierce international competition for energy resources, many of us feel—I think that this will be shared in the Committee—that we need more gas storage facilities, and the market is indeed coming forward with proposals. I think I am at one with the Conservative spokesman on the importance of that—indeed, much of the Bill will enable it to be facilitated by an appropriate regulatory regime.
As for the types of installation, above water, they will be injection platforms and involve the recovery of stored gas—plus, of course, liquefied natural gas platforms. Indeed, LNG is becoming an increasingly important part of the global energy market. I think that I have dealt with the issue of Rough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East talked about the behaviour of CO2. This is a critical question. So far, globally, we have relatively little experience of CO2 storage, although the sheet is not blank; there is some experience. The example that I draw comfort from—it is perhaps the one that has been best researched—is the Sleipner gas field in Norwegian waters, where CO2has been successfully injected for something like 10 years. It is carefully monitored, scientifically studied and the advice is that, geologically, the CO2 is behaving as one would expect, which in layman’s terms means that it is still down there in a very safe state.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that, as we enter a century in which we expect to see the development of the safe storage of CO2—frankly, we need to see it—the scientific issues are absolutely vital. That is one reason why we have established a joint working relationship with our Norwegian friends. I discussed this with the Norwegian Minister only a couple of weeks ago, and we have an expert working group looking at all aspects of CO2. My hon. Friend raises a very important point.
One or two of the other issues raised may be ones we can tackle in the course of the morning. As our debates proceed, there are a number of pegs on which we can have some informed discussion on some of these critical questions. That might include the Liberal spokesman’s question about why is the current regime so complex—we might be able to tease out answers to that this morning.

Brian Binley: Has the Minister finished his paragraph?

Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry. I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but I got so excited by the geological storage of CO2 that I was guilty of a discourtesy. Let me give way.

Brian Binley: The Minister is very kind; I am most grateful. I recognise that the whole question of the regulator and the relationship with licensing will be dealt with later. However, I am concerned at this early stage about storage in the North sea and its relationship to the pre-combustion extraction of carbon and to the ability to obtain more from the North sea.
I recognise that I am slightly out of order, but one reason why I raise the issue now is that the Minister will know that tests have been set in respect of post-combustion. One proposal involved linking pre-combustion with the extraction of oil. Will he at least comment on that and give me some hope that other ways might be found to help people who want to exploit that facility?

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman said that I was very kind to give way. If I may say so, he was far too patient. He should have been waving his Order Paper to remind me that I had promised to give way.
The issue raised goes slightly outside the clause, but let me say that what we are doing this morning is, with the permission of the Committee, putting in place a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework. That brings us back to the Liberal Democrat question. The short answer is that we believe that, at the moment our legislative cover, is not fit for purpose. We are engaged in new territory relating to LNG and carbon capture and storage—later clauses deal with CCS—and we need a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework. That is the essence of the early part of the Bill.
I think that I can reassure the hon. Member for Northampton, South that although there is an interesting debate about whether we have chosen the right technology for our demonstration project of post-combustion—my story there is about its applicability to China, given the imperative of tackling global warming—this framework would be fit for purpose for whatever technologies arise in the future. These clauses are not part of the post-combustion scenario; they are about a wider scenario.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Prohibition on unlicensed activities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: I recognise that in the absence of many amendments this morning—it is a great tribute to the drafters of the Bill that it is near perfect, although we will see whether Committee members agree with that—I will detain the Committee with a number of relatively short speeches on clause stand part. However, it is important to get certain points on the record and, of course, to enable Committee members to participate in debates about particular clauses. This will be one of the slightly longer speeches, because I want to set out the context that the hon. Member for Northavon was anxious to hear.
I have touched on this point already. The context is that we in the UK have been fortunate for some time in being able to rely on natural resources for much of our energy consumption. As I have noted, however, gas production from the UK continental shelf—the UKCS—and particularly from the North sea is in decline. The story of the North sea is in two parts, both of which are important. One is that the UKCS remains a very important business in the United Kingdom. There is still a great deal of energy there. Indeed, I am reliably informed that two thirds of our energy need and demand in Britain is still met by the UKCS, so it is still very significant, but it is in decline at probably the rate of about 8 per cent. at the moment. The decline is therefore significant. Both things are true: it remains important, but it is in decline. That is part of the context for our discussion.
We started to import gas relatively recently because of the decline that I have mentioned. We are perhaps importing 20 per cent. or so of our gas requirement at the moment, but by 2020 that could be up to 80 per cent. A more cautious estimate would be between 50 and 80 per cent., but the Committee will see that the change is significant and relatively rapid. That greater reliance on imports poses some risk to the United Kingdom from overseas disruptions to energy supplies, as supply routes become longer and as they cross ever more countries to enter the UK’s energy system.
To minimise the risk of disruption or of soaring prices at times of high demand, we need to ensure that we have sufficient levels of gas importation and enough storage facilities. Some will remember that only two winters ago the spot price for gas rose on some days to a considerable height. We have less storage capacity than our continental neighbours, but as I said earlier that is because our store is the UKCS itself. However, it is worth noting that things are now changing.
The clauses in chapter 2 seek to address the problem by creating a regulatory framework to encourage investment in infrastructure that will allow the storage of gas offshore and enable liquefied natural gas imported into the UK to be unloaded to offshore installations or pipelines in order to be piped ashore. The Committee will know that LNG will become a significantly important part of global gas supplies. Almost certainly, it will become an increasingly important part of supply to the United Kingdom, not least with the Qatari LNG about to come on stream.
We know that there is potentially some £10 billion of private sector investment to be made in such projects, but investors have told us that they need a regulatory regime for such investment that will offer clarity and certainty. This part of the Bill will provide for such a regime through the establishment of gas unloading and storage licences. The Bill provides the powers to create a bespoke regulatory regime for the unloading of LNG and natural gas storage projects under the sea bed. Clauses 2 to 6 cover the licensing arrangements for such unloading and storage projects, and clauses 7 to 14 cover the enforcement of those licences.
Clause 2 underpins the new regime by prohibiting gas storage or unloading without a licence, gas being defined in terms of the combustible gases such as methane used for energy production. That prohibition also covers the recovery of the gas stored, the conversion of natural features such as salt domes for use as storage space and related exploration activities, as well as the establishment and maintenance of installations for those purposes. The prohibition applies in any place within the limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the UK or within a gas importation and storage zone designated under clause 1, which could extend up to 188 miles beyond the seaward boundaries of the territorial sea.
On a point of clarification, I should add that clause 2 applies to operators that carry on storage activities, but the provisions do not apply to the shipper or owner of the gas. Those persons that provide the gas to the operators of the storage facilities will therefore not require a gas unloading and storage licence. Anyone undertaking such activities without a licence will be subject to the criminal sanctions set out in clause 7.
Establishing an offence for non-compliance will help to ensure that developers seek the necessary licence before undertaking any such activity. That will enable us to keep track of all projects and to ensure that appropriate safeguards, such as environmental protections, are in place and adhered to.

Hugo Swire: On that point about environmental protection, I want to tease out from the Minister what discussions he has had with the marine environmental lobby. For instance, my part of the world is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a world heritage site, where the marine environment is extremely sensitive. What consideration will be given to that?

Malcolm Wicks: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of that question. We are fully aware of the environmental considerations, and I may say a little more about the subject later. However, just as in existing regimes for the exploration of oil and gas, environmental considerations are paramount. We are confident that through these provisions we can satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say that all our constituencies are areas of outstanding natural beauty, and that is certainly true of Croydon, North.

Albert Owen: Will the Minister assure the Committee that these provisions will not impact on the role of the local planning committees with regard to their environmental impact studies?

Malcolm Wicks: The short answer to that is no, but there will be an opportunity during the course of this debate to give a more specific answer to my hon. Friend .

Stephen Ladyman: I give the Minister advance notice of my question now so that he can answer it later. How does this measure interact with the habitats directive? Will the licences be issued irrespective of one’s responsibilities to the habitats directive, with those responsibilities being met later? Or will the person applying for the licence have to fulfil the obligations of the habitats directive before applying for the licence? As I say, I am quite happy if the Minister answers that question later.

Malcolm Wicks: If I may, I will answer that question in full later. The short answer is that we are fully joined up. Let us give an example of how we intend to tackle this. Concerns exist, for example, about the situation for whales and dolphins. Before awarding any licence or consent, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will conduct an appropriate assessment of the site, in line with the requirements of the habitats and wild birds directives. Should a licence or consent be deemed to have a negative impact on a protected habitat, such as the one for whales and dolphins, the licence or consent will not be awarded. For example, we have not issued licences for oil and gas exploration in Cardigan bay recently because we were concerned about the situation of the dolphins there. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend about our good intentions and our commitment to ensure that we have the appropriate legislation and regulation.

Stephen Ladyman: I am very grateful to the Minister for that reassuring answer. The one concern I have relates to his point of view and that of his Department. He seems to be describing a process in which officials in his Department have to be expert not just on energy matters but on environmental matters in order to judge whether to issue a licence. I wonder whether that is to expect too much of his Department.

Malcolm Wicks: I do not want my hon. Friend to expect too much of my Department, but he can expect a great deal. Obviously, this is a situation in which we have to join up with relevant agencies, and with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in particular. I note his concern, and I will say more about that in due course.
My instincts about local planning were correct. I am sure that during the course of Committee procedures in the past, my instincts have been incorrect, but I have always corrected myself later. I am being modest about this. In terms of local planning, the answer is that this regime purely applies offshore. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.
We recognise that with the advent of the single electricity market across Ireland, there are increasingly different considerations to take into account in Northern Ireland to the proposals that might come forward in the rest of the United Kingdom. To reflect those differences, I believe that it will be prudent for my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland to pursue a formal memorandum of understanding, setting out how we would work with the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland before granting any consents for gas infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland territorial waters. With those words, I move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out with such clarity the stark picture that is facing us on these issues. Some of us will have felt that his judgment was slightly impaired when he referred to Croydon as an area of outstanding natural beauty. I thought that most of us would assume that the nicest thing in Croydon is the A22, which leads to my constituency. However, this may have to be one of those areas of difference where we simply will not be able to find common ground and agree.
The Minister is also right to say that we could be dependent on imports for 80 per cent. of our gas by 2020. In the explanatory notes, it says that more than half of our demand for gas may be met by imports by 2020. However, the Minister is absolutely right to give a much starker assessment of the situation. Looking at his Department’s figures, our current consumption of gas is about 105 billion cu m a year. By 2010, that figure is expected to rise to 110 billion cu m a year and by 2020 it is expected to rise to 130 billion cu m a year. By 2010, half of our demand will be met by imports and by 2020, 80 per cent. of our demand will be met by imports.
So there is a very significant challenge facing us. It is not just us who face it; the issue of gas demand applies across the whole world. It is estimated that in 20 years’ time, there will be a 300 GW energy gap in the European Union alone. Just because people choose to build power stations that are powered by gas, that does not mean that there will be the gas available to power them.
The Government are rightly now addressing the issue of gas storage. In the past, I do not think that they have done enough in this regard. The Minister will remember his words when he said, just about two years ago, that we were “awash with gas”, which was about 24 hours before we nearly ran out of gas; I think that was the timing of his comment. Of Mary I, it was said that if they opened her up they would find “Calais” written on her heart; when the time comes for the Minister to be opened up, which we obviously hope is a long way off, we will find the words “awash with gas” written on his heart. It is better than having “full of wind” written there, but the phrase “awash with gas” did not quite capture the spirit of the problem at that time.
The fact is that, at the moment, we have about 12 days of average winter gas usage storage in this country. That compares with 80 days in France, Spain and Germany, where they are required by law to have far higher amounts of gas storage than we are required to have in this country.
Gas storage is an area in which we need to do much more. The Minister quite rightly points out the improvements that are happening in LNG and the pipeline connections that we have, which certainly add to our country’s energy security. However, he is absolutely right to say that more needs to be done to open up the potential for that £10 billion worth of investment in gas storage facilities. The industry has said to us that it wants a much clearer regulatory regime and, judging from its reactions to the Bill, it seems that the proposals that are being put forward are just about right.
We also need to be clear about the security of our gas imports. People can very readily get worked up about Russian gas imports, but I think that we must be sensible about that issue. There is wonderful imagery of the Russians being able to turn off a tap and just stop the gas flow coming through to countries such as Britain. We have a duty to explain to people that that is not the way that the system works. We must make it clear that, as a company, Gazprom has honoured every trading contract that it has had. Where the difficulties have arisen in Belarus and in Ukraine, those difficulties have been caused by very different issues, where gas sold cheaply for domestic consumption has been sold on at a much higher market price. I hope that we can try to reassure people that we do not face a threat from Russia on these issues. However, it is still right to take these steps of improving gas storage.

Jamie Reed: I recently attended a conference on energy and climate change in Ukraine, where representatives of the Belarusian and Ukrainian political parties were present, in addition to Gazprom. Among the Belarusians and the Ukrainians, the fear is a very real one that the Russians will arbitrarily turn off their gas at a whim.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, in those countries, there is that fear. However, it is very interesting to see how the British press and the German press have interpreted this story. Here, we have tended to say, “Look what Russia has done. How scary! That could happen here.” The German press have focused on the comments of the President of Ukraine, who says that Ukraine must look at its contracts and see if it has paid its bills, because that was the reason why Ukraine was disconnected. I think that, in this country, there is a bit of hysteria about this issue.
Nevertheless, if we want to reassure people, it is absolutely right that more gas storage will be an integral part of any energy solution, because the more gas that is stored on land or at sea here, the more we can increase the number of days of provision that we have and that will make it easier for people to feel secure in the long term.
I agree with the Minister that the current system of consents is too complicated and that there is great sense in simplifying it. What would happen if there was more than one licence sort for the same patch of sea? It is possible that there would be two potential storage areas, one beneath the other. About a year ago, I went with a parliamentary group to Texas and we saw what BP is doing in the gulf of Mexico. It is looking for and is able to identify oil and gas reserves under 10,000 ft of water and 20,000 ft of rock, and it can pinpoint those reserves with incredible accuracy. If one is now looking for oil and gas at those depths, it is plausible that one will find two potential reserves: one above the other. How does the licence relate to depths as well as to geographic area? What will the proposals mean for combined gas and wind projects? The Minister may be aware of Eclipse Energy’s project off the north-west coast; the intention is that when the wind is blowing, power will be provided by wind turbines and when it is not, the project will draw the gas from a largely depleted gas field. That seems to be a good balance, because one uses the wind when one can but one ensures security of supply as there is a gas back-up. In those circumstances, is it conceivable that what was previously a gas field would be designated as gas storage because of the way that it was being used? What would be the implications for those sort of projects? In general, we support the clause and, with those clarifications, we are happy to take it forward.

Martin Horwood: Mrs. Humble, it is a delight to be serving under your chairmanship again and I am looking forward to a co-operative approach from the Committee, with a lot of free exchange of ideas between both sides. However, to sound a slightly partisan note to start with, my constituency really does contain an area of outstanding natural beauty; the Cotswolds might beat Croydon on a good day. We have already had an insight into the psychology of Conservative Members on this subject; I had not realised that when they were talking about withdrawing from Europe, they were still talking about the loss of Calais. Perhaps that is an unfair point.
Returning to the subject of the clause, which is the licensing regime, clearly the purpose, as the Minister said, is to provide a suitable basis on which to have security of gas supply and to provide certainty and stability to energy retailers. One hopes that that stability will translate into stability of prices for consumers, which is a hot topic at the moment because of the sharp rises in energy prices that consumers have been suffering from. Instability and energy prices for the energy companies can sometimes translate into very large profits, as we have seen in the news today. Have the Government given any consideration to ways of recovering perhaps some of the cost of this licensing regime? The impact assessment puts the cost at a high level, but the licence price suggested in the impact assessment is only about £3,000. Will there be any scope for trying to recover, from the very high profits that energy companies make from time to time, any of the taxpayers’ costs? Recovered costs could then be directed at measures to tackle fuel poverty and might offset some of the impact of variable energy prices. Perhaps the Minister can address that.
The impact assessment also suggests two particular risks associated with a new licensing regime. Paragraph 66 on page 58 says:
“There is a risk that the time taken to bring the new licensing scheme into effect will act as a disincentive to developers in the short term.”
Are there any steps that the Government can take to minimise that disincentive and to make it clear to developers that they should not be discouraged at this vital time in the development of the technology? There is also concern in the impact assessment that:
“The licensing scheme will need to be sufficiently widely drafted so as to capture the range of innovative new technologies which are being developed in this sector.”
Having looked at the clauses, I cannot see anything that addresses the issue in the legislation. Will the Minister tell us that there will be a conscious effort to avoid closing off any particular technological avenues or innovation, and that the licensing regime will not be implemented too tightly?

Malcolm Wicks: This has been a useful debate on a number of quite important issues. I suspect that from time to time, perhaps with your support, Mrs. Humble, I have been a rather tedious member of the Committee who sticks to the Bill. The contextual issues are very interesting and the hon. Member for Wealden, helped us with the context by emphasising the changing nature and growing importance of imports of gas into the United Kingdom. Certainly those will be considerable in the future.
My judgment is that, as the century unfolds, the geopolitical issues relating to energy insecurities globally will become almost as significant on immediate agendas as climate change. I do not feel entirely relaxed about some of the questions in that regard, but we must pursue those issues on another occasion. It is certainly important that, alongside the UK developing what I always refer to rather simply as “home-grown energy”—energy that we can produce ourselves, here and offshore—we are smart about pipelines and regions and the importance of LNG. In terms of our national security, that is very important.
I had better not say too much about the phrase “awash with gas”, but on the occasion referred to, a debate was going on about whether the lights were going to go out. I cannot remember who was the leading proponent of that idea at the time. Others of us said, “No, the lights are going to stay on,” and on the particular day when I said to the House of Commons that we were awash with gas, that was the advice that I had received from national grid. That turned out to be the case, but I hope that that rather inelegant phrase will not be written across any part of me on any occasion, either now or in the long-term future.
Several issues have been raised. In particular, it was asked whether more than one licence would be sought in relation to the same patch of sea. I am advised that the Crown Estate will consider the competition and overlapping issues for any lease. Both the licence and the Crown Estate lease will apply to a defined volume, so it can deal with the issue of depth. I think that we are all right there, but no doubt when we need to draft any regulations later, or when we are in discussion with the Crown Estate, we will bring that issue to the attention of the relevant authorities.
I was asked about potential conflicts and I agree that the project that has a wind turbine attached to it in the sea is quite intriguing. We may see more of that in the future. At present, all consents required will be given by the Secretary of State, taking into account other activities in the sea environment, including other petroleum activities and proposed wind farms. Likewise, the Bill includes an amendment to the Petroleum Act 1998 to allow gas storage developments as well as wind farms to be taken into account when consenting to petroleum activities. Such provision is already made in relation to wind farms by an amendment made by the Energy Act 2004. Those arrangements will allow the Secretary of State to ensure that the respective industries have liaised with each other with regard to a mutually agreed solution for developments, and ensure that those industries co-exist in the interests of all.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet wondered whether BERR was sufficiently environmentally expert. I reiterate that our long experience as a Department in regulating offshore oil and gas means that we have become expert on environmental issues. Indeed, the Department already employs an offshore environment and decommissioning unit, which regulates the offshore oil and gas and renewables industry, in the context of sustainable development, with a raft of legislation for the protection of the environment. I reiterate that we liaise carefully with DEFRA and other appropriate agencies.
We heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham—another very important and beautiful part of our country. I will not rise to the challenge about Croydon, North, except to say that Thornton Heath looks lovely at this time of year, if hon. Members know what I mean. I will not go on about Broadgreen, which is also particularly beautiful—I am in enough trouble making those remarks. I will not be tempted by the hon. Gentleman.
The usual answer applies, perfectly appropriately: the use of revenues must be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not me, sadly. I think that I have more or less covered that question, but the hon. Gentleman asked another about new technologies. We are not in the business of trying to close those off. The Bill contains enabling powers to facilitate the new licensing regime to cover all types of innovative investment in gas offshore. Later on, we will come to clauses on carbon capture and storage. Part of the raison d’être of the Bill is the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the kinds of new challenges and technologies that we are now seeing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Licences

Steve Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
‘(4) (a) The Secretary of State shall consult with relevant environmental bodies, particularly in relation to marine plans, when granting licences.
(b) “environmental bodies” are defined as government departments and their agencies with particular responsibility for environmental issues.’.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 20, in clause 17, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
‘(4) (a) The Secretary of State shall consult with relevant environment bodies, particularly in relation to marine plans, when granting licences.
(b) “environmental bodies” are defined as government departments and their agencies with particular responsibility for environmental issues.’.

Steve Webb: We now move on to the part of the Bill that deals with the licensing process. Our amendment relates to the conditions that must be satisfied before a licence is issued. Amendment No. 19 relates to gas licences. Amendment No. 20 is identically worded and relates to carbon storage licences. It was very sensible and wise of you, Mrs. Humble, to group them together, so that we do not have the same conversation twice.
The amendments would ensure that, when the licensing arrangements for the offshore storage of natural gas and, subsequently, CO2 are made, they take full account of the environmental risks and, in particular, that they are integrated with future legislative arrangements for protecting the marine environment. What we are driving at is the fact that we have this Bill and then a marine Bill. Clause 3 talks about the regulation of the marine environment, on which will follow further legislation later this year. How will those interrelate? Should we be concerned that this Bill might not deal with things that are not then picked up in the marine Bill?
As I understand it, the marine Bill will not cover the sort of issues before us today, such as gas storage. Therefore, if we do not get that right in this Bill, it might not be done at all. That is why we tabled these two amendments, which would simply require that, before a licence is granted, the licence issuing authority should consult other Departments with an environmental interest, of which DEFRA is the most obvious. It would also be required to consult different environmental agencies, including those with responsibilities for the marine environment.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me for returning ad nauseam to my main theme, which is that energy and the environment are the responsibilities of different Departments. With the best will in the world, the incentives, interests and focus of those two Departments are not identical; they could not be. The danger is that the body that decides whether to grant a licence under the Bill will have a raft of considerations, such as safety—that consideration would be common to both Departments—and energy considerations might be given greater weight than environmental ones where there is a potential trade-off between the two. Obviously, if they go hand in hand, it is not an issue. However, if, for example, a big leap forward in energy security or supply could be achieved at some modest environmental cost, there would be a trade-off.
Without our amendment, the energy Department might be inclined to grant a licence where the environment Department might give greater weight to consideration of the environmental damage and say no. To give an imperfect analogy, we had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about the Severn barrage—a clear case in which energy issues might point one way, but consideration of the environmental damage the other. A trade-off must be sought, and if the energy Department has the lead and has no environmental duty under the Bill, the worry is that environmental considerations might, at best, be secondary.

Stephen Ladyman: I very much understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, which is why I asked the Minister the same questions. However, my understanding is that the habitats directive already imposes on the Government the obligation to carry out consultations, so I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to include such a provision in the Bill.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for that and I noticed that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was consistent with the points that I wanted to make. Many of the environmental organisations that have been in touch with us, such as the WWF and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, are keen to have some reassurance from the Minister on the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. They seek reassurance on not only present technologies, but novel technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham mentioned. In other words, we want to be confident that there will be, for example, a full strategic environmental assessment where novel forms of extraction or storage are applied. I am not absolutely sure that such an assessment would follow from the habitats directive—I do not know enough about it to know whether that would be the case—but that is the sort of assurance that those groups seek from the Minister. Where novel extraction or storage activities are licensed under the Bill, will they be subject to a full strategic environmental assessment?
The question is whether such considerations should be dealt with as part of the licensing process at all, or whether the proposed marine management organisation, which is obviously germane to this issue, should have oversight. The worry is that the Government’s plan is that it should not. If so, we would have a Bill covering the licensing of offshore gas storage and supply, but the separate marine management organisation that is to be introduced in legislation later this year would have no duties at all. Most people would think it rather strange to create a body called the marine management organisation when that body has no remit over the extraction and storage of gas and energy in the marine environment. I hope that the Minister can clarify the relationship between that body and the licensing authority and why the marine environment organisation will not be given oversight over such issues.
Finally, I should like some clarification of spatial planning in the marine environment, to which these proposals relate. Currently, there is not a robust set of protected marine areas to guide the location of new activities at sea, but the licences that we are talking about should be granted in accordance with a strategic overview. We have heard mention of local planning authorities, and individual planning applications that were made on land would fall within a strategic plan. If the Government do not accept the amendment and if the marine management organisation does not have responsibility for such issues, we might end up with—I was about to say a gold rush, but that is not the right analogy—people making licence applications on an ad hoc basis that do not fit into an overall planning environment, as they would on land.
Our preference would be for the marine management organisation to have responsibility for environmental oversight over such issues. However, if the interest is in regulatory simplicity and in having only one body, not two, and if the marine management organisation is deemed not to be the right body, we would, at the very least, want there to be consultation of the sort envisaged in the amendments with the relevant environmental bodies before licences were granted.

Alan Whitehead: I seek your guidance, Mrs. Humble, on whether the intention is to enter into a clause stand part debate after we have considered the amendments, or whether I should address all my remarks to the amendment. The best thing is probably to proceed and see whether you ask me to sit down.
Regardless of whether the amendments are accepted, the clause refers to not only the question of whether Departments should issue a licence for gas storage, but the fact that a licence is subject to the provisions of a Crown lease that may have been granted or may be granted subsequently. To take up the comments by the hon. Member for Northavon, there are not two partners in this enterprise but at least three. That is the extent to which the licence that is granted by the Secretary of State is subject to an entirely separate body, over and above any other considerations pertaining to DBERR, DEFRA and other Departments.
The Crown Estate is not a reactive organisation in the way that is sometimes implied by references to it; nor, in fact, is it particularly responsible to the Crown. It was split into two some while ago—I believe in the 1960s—whereby the personal possessions of the Queen went in one direction and the commercial activities that relate to those things that were relevant to the Crown went in another direction. The Crown Estate is now a separate organisation with a board of directors and managers. It is responsible, apparently—although not accountable to anybody, as far as I can see, least of all to Parliament—for the deposits of money that it makes to the Treasury, and it is subject, in theory, to an intervention notice by the Treasury if its activities go seriously off the rails.
It is interesting that no intervention notice has ever been issued by the Treasury to the Crown Estate since it was set up, and it is not clear whether the intervention notice would be compatible with, for example, policy on the charge that was decided for a licence. The possibility more than theoretically exists that, in pursuit of its wish to maximise the money that it deposits in the Treasury’s coffers, the Crown Estate could take a view on the issuing of a licence that would be completely incompatible with the aims of providing a licence, given the idea that, for national strategic purposes, a licence might be granted for gas storage. It is also more than theoretically possible that, under those circumstances, the Crown Estate could simply refuse a licence or put such conditions on it that totally negated the intent of the licence that was issued by the Department.
Those may be regarded as fairly arcane considerations. I accept that members of the Committee are looking at me as though they were rather arcane. [Hon. Members:“No, no.”] Nevertheless, they are important, because, as far as I can see, the clause contains no leverage whatsoever that the Department that issues the licence can use on the next procedure to make the licence real. I may not have understood the process properly, or it may be that the procedures that have been followed over so many years give reliability to a process that, theoretically, is not perfect. Nevertheless, that is how matters stand as far as the Crown Estate is concerned, and I would value the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Minister on whether the arrangements that I have described are sufficient and reliable enough to ensure that the clause has the effect that I am sure we all want it to have.

John Bercow: Before calling the next speaker, I advise Members that I would not anticipate a separate stand part debate, given that clause 3 is narrowly phrased and the discussion so far on the amendment has been wide-ranging. If Members wish to address the clause in addressing the amendment, this is their opportunity to do so.

Martin Horwood: Thank you, Mrs. Humble. I think that I will be on that procedural territory.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test with whom I often find myself in agreement. He often points out problems in policy that the rest of us have not spotted. He has outdone himself on this one.
The issue that I want to raise is one that was mentioned in passing by my hon. Friend a minute ago. It is about the tension that is reflected in this clause as to whether this is a natural area of responsibility for DBERR or DEFRA. Do we see this as principally a business activity and, therefore, naturally in the domain of DBERR or is it about the disposal of a toxic substance? That question involves an important principle. Surely, one of the main purposes of energy policy should be to reduce the production of CO2 and not to accept it as a natural part of the energy process. We ought to be thinking of the disposal of CO2 as analogous to landfill.
The operation of a landfill site can be a profitable business activity, but it is not something that we would want to encourage, or see as a long-term growth activity. Such an operation is clearly the responsibility of DEFRA. If one was a conspiracy theorist, one might see something slightly suspicious in the relative timings of this Bill, the Planning Bill and the marine Bill. The latter Bill had widespread support when it was proposed some years ago, but it has not yet made it to the House. Now it is being pre-empted by this Bill in an important respect that is highlighted in my hon. Friend’s amendment. The marine management organisation may well have some of its anticipated responsibilities removed from it before it has even been set up, which must be some kind of a record.
Perhaps the Minister could reassure the Committee that such a conspiracy theory is not well founded and that there has been adequate consultation on the issue of the responsibilities of the marine management organisation and that he has had discussions with DEFRA on this. Perhaps, also, he could tell us what conversations his Bill team in DBERR have had with the Bill team working on the marine Bill in DEFRA.

Paddy Tipping: This is an important discussion on a matter of principle. How can we have development while at the same time protecting the natural environment? How do we balance the two? These are important amendments, particularly, as the hon. Member for Northavon has said, with the introduction of long-anticipated legislation on the marine environment.
I say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham that I do not think that there is any conspiracy here at all. He is right to say that there has been a long gestation period for the marine Bill. It is a difficult issue. Let me remind him that the Bill appeared in Labour’s last manifesto; it has not been forgotten. A White Paper was published last March and I anticipate that the draft Bill will be published in April. We will have to wait and see what is in the draft Bill. Clearly, it will bring forward an enhanced series of marine protected areas and, for the first time, it will introduce the notion of marine spatial strategy. As has already been said, there is the notion of a marine management organisation. There needs to be considerable discussion about the powers of such an organisation and we shall have to wait to see what is in the draft Bill. Clearly, it is not possible now to table amendments on a Bill that is not yet in existence, but there is a point of discussion here.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point with which I agree. I accept that we cannot know the content of the marine Bill until it is published, but does he expect the marine spatial strategies that are envisaged to encompass gas storage agreements of the sort that we are discussing today?

Paddy Tipping: I am not in the position to answer that question, because I have not seen the draft Bill. However, having followed such matters closely for a long time, I know that there have been substantive discussions between DEFRA and DBERR. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet will remind us that the Department for Transport has been involved fundamentally in the preparation of this Bill. It is a difficult issue, but the essential point made in Committee today is that, whatever the powers under the Bill, they must link clearly to the future attraction—an attraction that we have had a trailer about, but we do not yet know what is in the film. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point because I anticipate that the marine Bill may be highlighted in the next Queen’s Speech, and the Bill now under discussion must be in sync with larger legislation on the marine environment.
I wish to pursue briefly the arcane point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Those of us who have had dealings with the Crown Estate know that it is an arcane body; it is unique. My hon. Friend referred to having leverage on the Crown Estate, but I do not know how we can have any leverage on it at all. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the role of the Crown Estate. It chooses to maximise profit and income from the Treasury. It is in a powerful position. We need assurances that it is on board with the general policy set out in the Bill.

Brian Binley: I thank you for your guidance on clause 3, Mrs. Humble. I had my doubts about certain points, and you have clarified the position for me.
I wish to set my remarks about climate change against the issue of China and India because carbon storage impacts particularly on that debate. If we go ahead in Europe alone, the cost throughout the next 20 or 30 years will be enormous to European industry and the only way in which we can take a proper approach to climate change is to ensure that we have a global agreement with both China and India. The whole matter of gas storage impacts on that particular area.
The Bill provides a dual lease and permit system of licensing, which adds sizeably in the minds of the industry to the bureaucracy of licensing, regulation and inspection. It is concerned about adding to cost, for example, at a time when cost is in the early days and very much an investment that is reliant on income at a later date. A licensing exercise will be more expensive because of its dual purpose. The lease part of the process is related to the Crown Estate and, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, there is much worry about control and the ability to understand the machination in that regard.
Later in the Bill, particularly under clause 12(3), reference is made to the regulatory and inspection powers. It suggests that they will be lodged with another body. That will make the matter of licensing and regulation particularly difficult for an industry that is in the relative early stages of development and needs all the help it can get.
My real plea is to ask the Minister whether we can reconsider the whole matter. I know we cannot do so in this Bill, but there will be later opportunities. Indeed, we could bring the whole of licensing, inspection and all the regulatory matters under the control of a central body rather than splitting it between the two bodies, as suggested by the Bill.

John Robertson: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Humble. Could I follow on from the hon. Member for Northampton, South on the question of licensing in general? Although, it will crop up in various places in the Bill, it is important to raise the issue now. At our third sitting I asked Mr. Paul Dymond, the director of operations of Oil and Gas, about licensing. He said:
“There are a number of parts in the Bill asking to tighten up certain pieces. Licensing has been going on since 1964, and there are hundreds of licences. Within each licence, there are tens of part-licences, so the licensing process today is exceedingly complex
When I asked him whether he thought it was more or less complicated, he replied:
“Because the process has been going on for so long, companies have commercial and legal mechanisms to cover this for themselves. What is really important is that some of the new powers that the Secretary of State will have as a result of the Energy Bill do not work against, but with those mechanisms that are there.”——[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 19 February 2008; c. 105, Q205-6.]
I am not concerned about costs, because I think that these companies can afford a few bob or two. I will not worry about how much it costs them to get the licences and how many people they employ. But if there is one thing that has been a feature of many Bills over the time of this Government, it is that we try to streamline bureaucracy. I ask the Minister to take a look at this and see whether we can do that here. Although we must ensure that security and safety are paramount in everything we do, if we introduce more hurdles for people to get over, sometimes the process just becomes too cumbersome. At the end of the day, the only people who make any money are the lawyers.

Charles Hendry: This has been a useful and well informed debate and we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for the knowledge that he has brought to some of these considerations. We all agree that this should not simply be a matter of transferring environmental damage from one aspect of the energy process to another in an attempt to reduce CO2 emissions. Doing massive damage to our marine environment in the process is not an appropriate response to the issue.
We have to go into the whole CCS debate with our eyes open and understand the consequences. It is easy at the moment for it to be seen as the panacea for all our ills that will enable us to go on burning fossil fuels for all time to come. People have not yet fully understood how it might work and what the consequences might be. But I should be interested if the Minister could take this debate a little further and look at the legal responsibilities of where liability lies in these matters, particularly in relation to things like statutory nuisance.
It is quite possible that if one of these installations was put in place, it would be deemed to be a statutory nuisance to fishermen or to shipping lanes. Who then has responsibility? Clearly there is the operator, who is in charge and who owns the installation, but he has a lease from the Crown Estate. So does the Crown Estate also have some of the legal duties for statutory nuisance? But it is operating under licences partly from DBERR and partly from DEFRA, so do they have any legal responsibility for statutory nuisance in these areas?
We need some clarity here and not just in relation to such activities, but in relation to a whole load of others too. Offshore turbines are in a different part of the Bill, but the same issue will apply if they have a licence from the Crown Estate and it is deemed that they are making a statutory nuisance by obstructing other people’s legitimate right to go about their business. Who will be responsible for that?
I have a couple more general questions, which I should be grateful if the Minister could answer. Who will be responsible for assessing the geological safety of the proposed storage area? Will it be officials from his own Department, the inspectors who are referred to in a subsequent clause and who will carry out subsequent assessments? We all know that the terrain of the Earth changes gradually over time in certain areas, so who will be responsible for making sure that, in decades to come, they are still satisfied about the geological safety of the areas that are being proposed for these activities?

Albert Owen: I want to bring a Welsh dimension to this issue. We heard in the discussions on the amendments talk about environment groups and agencies but, in Wales, the statutory consultee is the Welsh Assembly Government. I know from my experience—and my constituency is surrounded by sea so the issue affects me considerably—that with some applications in the past, we had the old Department of Trade and Industry giving licences, using the Welsh Assembly Government as a consultee. However, they had certain responsibilities themselves and there was often duplication and delay because both bodies were involved.
Now we have the move to liquefied natural gas, and I prompt the Minister on this point because there is a proposal in my constituency, or off my constituency, for the unloading of LNG. I want to know whether the Welsh Assembly Government have responsibility for that because of the short distances involved. The planning authorities are responsible for what happens ashore, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is responsible for what happens off the territorial waters, but who is responsible for what takes place a short distance offshore and not on land, but not outside territorial waters? Do the Welsh Assembly Government have responsibility for this? Would he deal with that question in his winding up?

Malcolm Wicks: This has been a useful discussion, including the question of who is responsible for longer-term geological monitoring, and I hope to have an answer to that before too long.
Let me just set the scene on this clause by saying that clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to grant licences for the purposes of offshore gas storage or unloading and related activities. The licences will contain a number of terms and conditions, details of which will be decided following consultation. Perhaps we can leave the details of such terms and conditions until we move on to clause 5.
Because the exclusive rights to exploit the sea, the sea bed or spaces under the sea bed for these purposes will be vested in the Crown under clause 1, an operator will in addition have to obtain lease or authorisation from the Crown Estate. Subsection (2) therefore makes provision for the geographical co-ordinates covered by the gas storage licence to be linked to those covered by the lease or authorisation from the Crown Estate. This is a sensible arrangement as both are required before any activity can take place and it will reduce bureaucracy for both the licensing authority, in this case the Secretary of State, and the operator.
We hope to convince the mover of the amendment that it is unnecessary, but that is for him to judge. However, it is a useful and important amendment and has led to an important discussion. The hon. Member for Northavon has raised the important point of the interaction of environmental regulators when granting licences for offshore gas storage and carbon dioxide storage activities. There is also the important theme of the advent of marine spatial planning and the marine Bill, to which I will return, although hon. Members will understand that until we have a marine Act, some of the specifics cannot be decided.
Through this amendment, hon. Members are seeking to introduce a requirement that before issuing offshore gas unloading and storage or carbon dioxide storage licences, the Secretary of State shall consult with relevant environmental bodies, particularly in relation to marine plans, when granting the licences. One key aspect of the provisions in the Bill is the protection of the environment. We have therefore ensured the regulatory framework for offshore gas unloading and storage and carbon dioxide storage builds on existing environmental legislation. There already exists a tried-and-tested environmental regime for the oil and gas industries in the North sea and this is set out in a number of pieces of legislation. I assure hon. Members that it is because we take these issues so seriously that we will also provide for legislation to cover offshore gas unloading and storage and carbon dioxide storage activities. That will ensure that proposals for installations of that type are subject to appropriate controls to protect the environment. Where necessary, environmental approvals granted in respect of a project would also contain conditions to protect the environment. We will extend the requirements of EU environmental laws to the offshore gas unloading and storage, and carbon dioxide storage, regimes.
The relevant environmental protection laws provide for and, indeed, require consultation with the relevant environmental bodies, such as Departments and their agencies that have a particular responsibility for the environment. The hon. Member for Northavon may find it helpful if I explain some of the environmental protections that will be in place once the regime is implemented. Those obviously cannot be specified in the Bill.
First, under legislation implementing the environmental impact assessment directive, certain aspects of any offshore gas unloading and storage of CO2 will require an environmental impact statement. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman in that respect. The environmental impact assessment will be undertaken by the potential developer and assessed by the Secretary of State or, in the case of CO2 storage, the relevant licensing authority. The assessment will determine the extent of any potential impact of the proposal on the environment, and, where necessary, will propose options for minimising such impacts. By virtue of the public participation directive, the public will be able to participate in and be consulted on any proposal.
Where necessary, an appropriate assessment will also be undertaken under the habitats directive. That will determine whether the proposals would have any adverse effect on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites. I do not think that there are any of those in my constituency, but I am sure that Opposition Members have them in their constituencies.
I shall speak briefly to the specific point about marine plans. As hon. Members will know, the concept of marine spatial planning is one that the Government are considering in the context of the draft marine Bill that we expect to publish later this year—as it says here, more cautiously than my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet: I shall give him more lines to take in the future.
We expect that once the marine management organisation is established, the Secretary of State will work closely with the organisation in considering the potential for offshore gas unloading and storage and carbon dioxide storage projects in UK waters. That will replicate the existing relationship between the Secretary of State and the Marine Fisheries Agency in the context of existing oil and gas licensing rounds. There is already a good deal of experience of the need for such consultation and collaboration.
I appreciate the commendable intention of the amendment, but I consider that because of the existing environmental protections that I have just outlined, it is unnecessary. In my view, the relevant matters should be dealt with under existing environmental laws; they can and will be amended as appropriate.

Martin Horwood: Perhaps I should just briefly share some of the thought processes behind the drafting of the amendment, which refers to environmental organisations in general. Of course, the reason it had to do so was that the maritime management organisation does not yet exist. It was the maritime spatial aspect of the matter that particularly concerned us.
The Minister has given a reassuring indication of the direction of policy, but surely the Government are the Government and they must know whether the maritime management organisation will be a statutory part of the process in due course. If the Bills had been presented to Parliament the other way round, that matter would have been sorted out. Surely the mere timing of the Bills does not mean that the Government do not know the answer to that question. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that the organisation will be part of the statutory process?

Malcolm Wicks: For reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet outlined, one cannot be as specific as the hon. Gentleman wishes, because the question of what the marine Act will look like at the end of the day is subject to the will of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman surely understands that discussions are already going on, and will continue, about the precise and important arrangements that need to be made.
As I have said, in relation to offshore oil and gas, agreement has been reached with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that that is a reserved matter, and that therefore the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform should be the licensing authority. Perhaps I did not say that earlier, but it shows that we are already discussing in my Department the interaction of oil and gas with marine spatial planning.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.